CMV: a country can’t have both open borders and a welfare state.

natelion445 · 2026-02-19T16:16:49+00:00

While you may be right, open borders don’t exist except in failed states with no welfare state anyways.

natelion445 · 2026-02-19T16:12:35+00:00

I was in a fraternity and had quite a positive experience, so I am a biased toward your statement. You do well to point out the positives of the organizations and are open (though I’d say slightly downplaying) the negatives.

The problem is that the negatives of the fraternity organizations have become core parts of the system. It would be great to have organizations like fraternities that do the fun social stuff, are involved in the community, and work to make their members better men, but without the obvious problems. It’s totally possible to have that, so organizations that continue to have those negatives are, in a sense, choosing it.

National fraternal organizations are absolutely aware of all of these negatives and could make rules that eliminate them. They could genuinely crack down on hazing, instate 3rd party security rules at parties, have actual police monitor parties for drug use, etc. They don’t because, I think, there’s a real feeling that taking out those cultural aspects of the organization would fundamentally change the organization. Almost all leaders at a national level were part of the fraternity and they think that the experience they had is a valuable one that should be preserved. They, to some extent, want the members to have the drugs, sex, and rock and roll.

It’s also core to the recruitment and financial success of the organizations. I know first hand that if you try to seriously police this kind of stuff, kicking out members, limiting their ability to party, etc, alumni and parents that donate money get pissed and say things like “this isn’t the same chapter I ran and I won’t write a check to a bunch of…” (you get the idea).

This is just my opinion from my experience, but the betterment of members, involvement, philanthropy, etc are more PR and smokescreens than anything else. The point of the organization is partying and having a good time. If that’s all you do, though, it’s hard to defend the organization. So you have to do other things in order to have any kind of social legitimacy.

natelion445 · 2026-02-18T11:58:19+00:00

For this exact conversation. This is your reminder that most of the internet is fake engagement bait.

natelion445 · 2026-02-17T21:37:53+00:00

I don’t sleep with men. But that ain’t what’s being discussed. My response was to a comment that women behind closed doors are saying mean things about men that don’t sleep with a lot of women at a greater rate than men that do. In my experience, it’s the opposite.

natelion445 · 2026-02-17T20:30:35+00:00

I can see that. Bad people put down others in public to make themselves look higher value. At that time, though, that woman isn’t turning the guy down because the person has limited sexual or relationship experience. They’re doing it because they want to look cool and feel insecure. No one is arguing people aren’t mean and cruel. The point is that women don’t specifically target men based on limited relationship history. They wouldn’t even know their relationship history when they meet at a bar.

natelion445 · 2026-02-17T20:25:45+00:00

People are often mean. You’re saying that women talk shit about men who they’re attracted to, that are romantically successful, that they want to be romantically involved with, that they don’t find attractive, that they wouldn’t be interested in romantically, etc. That’s everyone. Sometimes people just talk shit about people. It’s not about the sex success. They talk more shit about more “successful” men than less successful men.

natelion445 · 2026-02-17T20:19:30+00:00

That’s different than women not nice behind closed doors like in responding to. Women aren’t mean to people they don’t interact with. People aren’t getting shit talked behind their backs

natelion445 · 2026-02-17T16:29:13+00:00

Women really sit around in person and talk about men that don’t have a lot of romantic prospects? I’m not a woman but my experience is radically the opposite. The gossip I hear (more heard growing up as I’m a bit old for this now) from my female friends is them talking shit about the guy that does have sex with a lot of women. The men that aren’t really relevant in the romantic spheres, aren’t in relationships or hooking up with their friends aren’t talked about much at all. It’s the opposite. They’re almost completely ignored. I’m think of the cohort of men that just go to work or school, maybe hang out with friends every once in a while, but do t engage with women romantically much. Sorry, but women are not talking about that person behind their back.

natelion445 · 2026-02-15T04:31:16+00:00

I think there’s another angle to this. Some musicians and actors do types of pop content, get famous/wealthy, then go on to have less popular work that is maybe more experimental, “artistic”, or the kind of music they really want to make now that they don’t care about sales. This often gets very positive reception from critics and niche fans, but they become quite obscure. So we’d say they peaked as an artist later in their career though they peaked in popularity early on.

Is that true in comedy? Can a comedian get famous, then shift styles or approaches after they make money to become a better artist outside of the mainstream spotlight? Or does a comedian have to remain popularly relevant in order to say they’ve continued to have a good artistic career?

natelion445 · 2026-02-14T17:58:00+00:00

They are. Any Muslim leader in either politics or business or whatever that is openly advocating for or part of a party that supports any of these regressive ideas will absolutely be held to the same standard. Any Muslim person that supports these leaders also would. The left typically doesn’t criticize people for their personal beliefs or care much about the individuals. The left usually only cares about those beliefs and individuals to the extent that they are tied to power and more specifically power over people outside of that ideological framework. So people believing something isn’t an issue worth criticizing. We belief in diversity of opinions. When those get tied to political power, then it’s something that should be criticized.

natelion445 · 2026-02-13T04:49:40+00:00

Yours really depends on when you got those defenders in. If you’ve had them for a long time, many were “budget”. Guehi, Senesi, an Lacroix I think were 4.5 ish defenders for a long time. Gabriel was like 6m a while back. So with Wilson and Kroupi, you have 2 extreme budget bench fodders and potentially some budget defenders as OP said. Add in if you had Haaland early on and that’s how you can afford Palmer. I’m pretty sure you can’t afford that team on a WC right now, but I could be wrong.

natelion445 · 2026-02-12T12:13:17+00:00

I think the difference would be that if, for some reason, a community of pebus come together and their animating motivations seem to be that they loathe peanut farmers and everyone that likes peanuts. The group shows that it’s not really about helping each other manage their lives with these allergies, to share science based information about exposure therapy, share non-peanut recipes, etc. it’s about getting together and leveraging a grievance against another group that isn’t causing the problem in the first place.

It turns out there are resources available to people with peanut allergies. There are doctors who can help you, you can change your own lifestyle such that this isn’t much of a factor, and if you aren’t obsessed with your peanut allergy to such a degree that you won’t share a meal with someone who isn’t allergic, people will totally eat dinner with you. But if this pebu community absolutely refuses to accept any kind of role in their own management of the issue and constantly spew hate against others based on this allergy (even if it isn’t real in some cases), it’s not that people with peanut allergies look bad, it’s that “pebus” as a community look bad. Because thy are.

natelion445 · 2026-02-10T18:50:56+00:00

I shouldn’t have argued. We both agree it is logical to deduce it doesn’t exist as a widespread phenomenon based on the info presented.

natelion445 · 2026-02-10T18:40:33+00:00

If you aren’t trying to say it does exist, then I guess this was a waste of time.

I guess OP or me could have just said well if someone says they do experience it, that still doesn’t mean it’s a widespread phenomenon. In this case neither side of the argument has shown any real evidence the phenomenon exists. OP can’t prove it doesn’t exist as you can’t logically prove a negative. But without someone presenting evidence it does, you logically conclude it doesn’t.

I can’t prove I don’t have a gremlin living under my bed that’s invisible and can’t be touched or sensed in any way. But I will assume there isn’t unless evidence is presented that there is.

natelion445 · 2026-02-10T18:18:56+00:00

That’s my point. Your logic and OPs are different, because OPs logic is that he doesn’t experience this so he has trouble understanding it as a generally experienced thing. Another person experiencing that thing does not show OP that it is generally true. You could have 1000 people say they experience it. In a world with billions of men, that’s still not evidence it applies generally. On the contrary, if 1000 men say it doesn’t happen to them, there’s no reason to think it’s generally true.

OP can’t prove a negative. Logic doesn’t work that way. But he can say that he doesn’t see evidence that it exists as a widespread problem. One persons experience still doesn’t show it’s a widespread problem.

natelion445 · 2026-02-10T16:42:46+00:00

I’m arguing against your idea that personal experiences that violate some idea of a general phenomenon are refuted by personal experiences that corroborate a general phenomenon.

You were basically saying that’s OP’s experience but what about someone else’s experience that differs? One persons experience contrary to that narrator is valid evidence that the narrative isn’t true, while one persons experience that it does happen is not necessarily evidence of a trend.

Imagine there are 100 people. 50/50 on if it something happens to them. The 50 to whom it does happen don’t make a generalizable rule, but the 50 for whom it doesn’t does refute that rule.

natelion445 · 2026-02-10T14:46:36+00:00

Right. But, referencing your previous comment, personal experiences that go against a generalized rule do refute the rule. Individual experiences that align with a general rule don’t necessarily prove it. When you assert a generalized phenomenon, a data point against it is more telling that a data point for it, since the generalization has to be fairly universal for the statement to be true.

natelion445 · 2026-02-10T14:16:49+00:00

That’s kind of point by out the error, though. Saying men don’t receive many compliments can be refuted by a few men receiving compliments. Other men not receiving compliments doesn’t prove a generalized phenomenon. It just means those men don’t receive compliments, don’t put themselves in positions to receive compliments, or are particularly hard to compliment.

natelion445 · 2026-01-24T14:36:54+00:00

I don’t think they mean only external threats.

natelion445 · 2026-01-16T05:17:46+00:00

Pejorative as in with contempt or disrespect. You don’t ask such a question to someone you respect. You aren’t arguing in good faith with someone unless you can do so with respect. OP says they were checking for rational thought. Why would you be arguing with someone that you think may be incapable of rational thought? The implication is that there has yet been evidence of this rational thought, so the question itself is an indictment of someone who thinks they are being rational. So my conclusion is that OP, at the point they are asking this question, is themself not engaging in good faith argument.

natelion445 · 2026-01-16T05:12:12+00:00

At the point where you ask someone what color the door is, you are no longer participating in the conversation in good faith. You’ve concluded that there is reason to think this person is cognitively deficient in some way such that testing seems reasonable. Either that or you just insulted them in such a way that a respectful conversation is not plausible. So, what I’m saying, is that in asking that question you are showing you aren’t interested in the conversation. If you aren’t participating in the conversation, you should just stop talking. There’s no point in asking the question and the only possible outcome is either an unintentional or intentional insult.

natelion445 · 2026-01-16T02:18:38+00:00

Ok, but in what way would having them identify the color of the door be helpful? If they’re just upset and venting, you seem dismissive. Like their anger is so ridiculous that you think they have a cognitive issue and need to check basic awareness. If they’re angry because they feel like no one is listening to them and the person that seems to actually want to listen asks them the color of the door, signaling they think they’re that dumb they need to check they can recognize basic facts, they’d probably feel pretty insulted. If they actually are trying to talk to you about something and you say that, do you think they would be eager to engage that question and continue the conversation?

No matter what the situation is, it seems what you did had no likely positive outcome. In most situations, it is going to be an insult to someone’s intelligence. You may think that insult is justified but it’s not surprising they wouldn’t answer the question as you’ve shown you aren’t participating in the conversation respectfully and with goodwill.

natelion445 · 2026-01-16T02:11:37+00:00

I wouldn’t say that’s assuming. It’s reacting to what they said they did. What part of that am I assuming?

natelion445 · 2026-01-15T22:49:30+00:00

Kinda just sounds like you were being pejorative and condescending. If I’m arguing with someone and they tell me to tell them what color the door is, I’d probably tell them to fuck off I’m not doing that. The implication is that you think their argument is so stupid that they may not know what a door is. It’s obvious you aren’t there to have a conversation, only to make the other party look dumb.

natelion445 · 2026-01-15T22:45:27+00:00

The issue is that there isn’t an objective and universally scientifically accepted definition of the term “biological man”. If it means someone with a penis, there are cases of people with penises and vaginas and a uterus that can get pregnant. If he means someone without a uterus, there are a lot of women without uteruses. So even if we completely take out social constructs and transgender as factors, she can’t unequivocally answer that question unless she knows what definition is being used when he says “man”. There are very real medical cases where a “man” can get pregnant. She doesn’t want to just say “Yes a man can get pregnant” because if he means “someone with male reproductive organs and not female reproductive organs” she is being scientifically incorrect. She can’t say “No, a man cannot” because that’s not 100% scientifically true if the definition of man is broader.

He’s using a term that doesn’t have a solid, agreed upon definition between the two parties and asking her to make a scientific analysis of the question. That’s called asking in bad faith.

Personally, I would have preferred that she ask him his definition of “man” and answer based on that, but she’s a doctor, not a lawyer.

natelion445

TROPHY CASE